On March 25, 2025, I attended yet another hearing for the Michael Clark case via Webex. For those unfamiliar with this case, a simple Google search will reveal its extensive coverage in Colorado. Despite its widespread media attention, this is not a high-profile case in the traditional sense. Instead, it is yet another instance of someone claiming wrongful conviction—a claim that, as I’ve emphasized in previous articles, is vastly different from actual innocence.
Michael Clark himself was not present at today’s hearing for multiple reasons. After his last hearing, he experienced firsthand the logistical nightmare of being transported between prison and county jail, where he was stuck for nearly three weeks awaiting transfer. To avoid a repeat of that ordeal, he wisely chose to waive his appearance. However, for reasons unknown, he was also unable to participate via Webex.
Despite being scheduled as a status conference—a procedural check-in—the hearing quickly escalated into a heated legal battle. Clark’s attorney, Adam Frank, appeared to be making a spectacle of himself, behaving more like a slick car salesman than a competent defense attorney. From the way he presented his case, it seemed as though he genuinely believed the District Attorney would simply set his client free. His expectations, however, were wildly misplaced.
One of the most striking revelations during the hearing came from the Boulder District Attorney, who exposed critical omissions in Frank’s legal brief. According to the DA, Frank deliberately provided only partial truths in both his legal filings and his statements to the press. This revelation did not surprise me in the slightest. Michael Clark’s case is not a straightforward wrongful conviction case. There is a clear motive, a theme, and a media spectacle surrounding it—much of which seems fueled by Frank’s desire for personal recognition rather than genuine legal advocacy.
Frank’s reckless strategy not only jeopardizes his own client’s case but also undermines the credibility of legitimate wrongful conviction claims. The controversy surrounding the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and former forensic analyst Yvonne Woods has added another layer of complexity to this case. Woods admitted to misconduct in handling DNA evidence, raising valid concerns about cases she was involved in. However, while every case she touched should undoubtedly be reviewed, that does not automatically mean every conviction is tainted.
Frank’s approach—exploiting this scandal for his own agenda—does a disservice to those who are genuinely wrongfully convicted. By sensationalizing Clark’s case, he risks discrediting the entire fight for justice. In the end, this case is not about Michael Clark alone; it is about the broader implications of legal integrity, responsible advocacy, and the need to separate genuine wrongful convictions from opportunistic claims.
DA Challenges Defense’s Claims in Michael Clark Case: Y-STR DNA Testing Confirms Prior CBI Results
On March 25, 2025, another hearing took place in the Michael Clark case, conducted via Webex. While the case has gained significant public attention, it is important to distinguish between wrongful conviction claims and actual innocence. As I have previously written, there is a substantial difference between being innocent and merely claiming to be innocent. Once again, this distinction plays a crucial role in Clark’s case.
During today’s hearing, Michael Clark was not present. Having previously spent nearly three weeks stuck in county jail waiting for transportation back to prison, he chose to waive his appearance this time. However, technical issues prevented his participation via Webex.
Despite being scheduled as a status conference—typically reserved for procedural housekeeping—the hearing turned into a contentious legal battle. Clark’s attorney, Adam Frank, once again demonstrated an approach that appeared more like a sales pitch than a legal argument. Frank, known for leveraging media attention, seemingly believed that the District Attorney’s Office would simply concede to his narrative and release Clark without due consideration of all evidence. However, the DA’s office firmly refuted this expectation.
Key Revelations from the DA’s Office
The District Attorney emphasized that Frank’s supplemental motion under Rule 35(c) presented only part of the DNA analysis. While the defense highlighted the autosomal DNA testing, which suggested a 2.8 times higher likelihood that the sample originated from an unrelated individual rather than Clark, they conspicuously omitted another critical piece of evidence: Y-STR DNA testing.
According to People’s Exhibit 1, the Y-STR DNA analysis confirmed Clark’s presence at every tested locus. This form of testing, often used in forensic cases to analyze male-specific genetic markers, provided results that were 53 times more likely to indicate Clark’s DNA rather than that of an unrelated male in the U.S. population. This starkly contrasted the narrative presented by the defense.
The District Attorney’s Response
Addressing the court, the DA’s office underscored their commitment to ensuring the right outcome—not simply reacting to public or media pressure. Since receiving the private lab’s DNA report on March 6, prosecutors had met with forensic analysts three times and consulted experts from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI). They were not prepared to make a hasty decision based solely on the selective evidence presented by the defense.
Moreover, the DA’s office pointed out that the strong circumstantial evidence presented at trial, along with Agent Yvonne Woods’ testimony, was still a significant factor. While Woods admitted to procedural misconduct regarding past DNA cases, this did not automatically invalidate all of her work—including the Clark case. The DA’s office emphasized that each case involving Woods should be independently reviewed rather than universally dismissed.
The Path Forward
Although Frank and the defense attempted to create an expectation that the prosecution would drop the case outright, the DA’s office made it clear that this was far from reality. They reiterated that overturning a jury verdict is not a decision to be taken lightly. Moving forward, the prosecution will continue evaluating the feasibility of a retrial, considering witness availability and credibility, as well as the entirety of the DNA evidence rather than just selective findings.
Ultimately, justice demands a thorough review of all factors—not just those favoring one side. While Adam Frank appears determined to use media influence to shape public perception, the legal system must operate based on facts, not sensationalism. The Michael Clark case remains a stark example of how wrongful conviction claims can be weaponized, and why a careful, methodical approach is necessary before any final decision is reached.
Michael Clarke’s Attorney Fails to Refute DA’s Findings, Plays the Blame Game Instead
On March 25, 2025, another hearing in the case of Michael Clarke took place via Webex, further revealing the weaknesses in the defense’s approach. Attorney Adam Frank once again demonstrated a lackluster performance in responding to the District Attorney’s (DA) findings, making his client look guilty rather than working toward proving his alleged wrongful conviction.
Throughout the hearing, Frank relied heavily on discrediting former CBI analyst Missy Yvonne Woods rather than directly addressing the DNA evidence presented by the prosecution. His strategy focused entirely on casting doubt on Woods’ credibility, rather than providing a solid counterargument to the DA’s claims. This approach did little to strengthen Clarke’s case and only reinforced the jury’s original verdict.
When given the opportunity to respond, Frank attempted to argue that the defense’s DNA evidence was more reliable than the prosecution’s findings. However, his explanation was convoluted and evasive. He acknowledged that two DNA reports existed—one involving STR testing and another concerning Y-STR testing—but failed to adequately challenge the latter, which strongly supported Clarke’s guilt.
The DA’s office made it clear that while the autosomal STR testing cited by the defense suggested a weak connection, the Y-STR testing conducted independently confirmed that Michael Clarke’s DNA matched at every locus tested. The prosecution emphasized that the Y-STR results indicated that the DNA profile was at least 53 times more likely to belong to Clarke than to an unrelated individual in the U.S. population. Frank’s failure to counter this statistical evidence only weakened his case further.
Instead of focusing on substantive legal arguments, Frank shifted his entire defense to attacking Missy Woods’ credibility, arguing that her previous misconduct tainted the DNA results. While Woods’ past actions are indeed questionable, the DA rightfully pointed out that not all cases she handled were affected by her misconduct. More importantly, independent labs had confirmed key parts of the original findings, strengthening the prosecution’s position.
Frank’s repeated insistence that Michael Clarke’s DNA was not present on the Carmex container—a critical piece of evidence in the case—was misleading. He argued that only a single allele matching Clarke’s DNA was found, but he failed to convincingly explain away the Y-STR testing that reinforced the prosecution’s argument. The DA made it clear that this type of selective reporting by the defense was dishonest and did not tell the full story.
Frank’s performance in this hearing only harmed his client’s credibility. Instead of constructing a compelling argument for Clarke’s alleged wrongful conviction, he engaged in deflection and blame-shifting, all while failing to address the most damning evidence. If anything, Frank’s response only solidified the perception that the jury got it right in convicting Clarke.
As the case moves forward, it remains to be seen whether Clarke’s defense team will adjust their strategy or continue down the path of denial and weak rebuttals. One thing is certain: Frank’s inability to effectively counter the DA’s findings has done Clarke no favors in his pursuit of justice.
Adam Frank’s Reckless Leak and the Distorted Narrative Surrounding Michael Clark
On March 24th, a day before a crucial court hearing, defense attorney Adam Frank deliberately leaked information to the press in what appears to be a strategic yet poorly thought-out move. The timing of this leak was no coincidence; it was clearly an attempt to sway public opinion before the court had a chance to examine the facts. Frank even went as far as quoting himself in an article by The Gazette, a publication that has been consistently tied to this case. The journalist covering the case appears to have a vested interest—whether financial or otherwise—as her name is persistently attached to every update. Instead of verifying information through proper fact-checking, numerous news outlets blindly copied and pasted Frank’s statements, spreading potentially misleading information without considering the full scope of the case.
This raises an important question: Should the public trust the narrative that Frank is pushing, or should they wait for the court to properly assess all evidence? Just because an attorney makes a claim doesn’t mean it holds weight in the face of forensic facts and legal scrutiny.
The DNA Findings: A Game-Changer
During the court hearing, the District Attorney’s Office once again demonstrated its commitment to uncovering the truth by conducting additional DNA testing on the same sample in the same lab. The results were starkly different from the defense’s portrayal. The conclusion reached by independent testing refuted the defense’s assertions, proving that this case is far more complex than Frank would like the public to believe. In reality, the findings suggest that Michael Clark is not as innocent as his defense team claims.
Examining the Overwhelming Evidence Against Michael Clark
While Adam Frank continues his game of smoke and mirrors, the facts of the case paint a different picture. Let’s break it down:
- Motive and Financial Gain: Michael Clark had a clear motive. He stole Marty Grisham’s checkbook and wrote checks totaling $4,500 on the night of the murder.
- The Police Report: The very morning of his murder, Marty Grisham went to the police to report his stolen checks—directly linking Clark to the crime.
- Access to the Crime Scene: Clark was not just an acquaintance; he had keys to Grisham’s apartment and was a close friend of the entire family.
- The Weapon Connection: Clark possessed a gun that matched the weapon used in the murder.
- Jailhouse Confession: While incarcerated on a DUI charge, Clark allegedly confessed to another inmate.
These are not mere coincidences; they form a compelling case that cannot be ignored.
The Big Question: Is Michael Clark Really Innocent?
Despite the mounting evidence, Clark continues to insist on his innocence. But when you consider the facts—the financial motive, the stolen checkbook, the matching firearm, the confession, and his access to the victim’s home—the case against him seems undeniable. Adam Frank’s approach appears to be one of distraction rather than defense, attempting to manipulate public perception instead of addressing the damning evidence against his client.
The District Attorney’s Office has been methodical and precise in its handling of the case, ensuring that all forensic testing is properly conducted and verified. Unlike Frank, who is grasping at straws and blaming disgraced analyst Missy Yvonne Woods to divert attention, the DA’s team is focused on the facts.
The Bottom Line
Rather than relying on defense narratives that conveniently ignore hard evidence, the public—and more importantly, the justice system—must base its conclusions on forensic science and factual integrity. If Adam Frank truly believes in Michael Clark’s innocence, he needs to present evidence that withstands legal scrutiny, rather than leaking selective details to the press in a desperate attempt to rewrite the narrative.
As this case unfolds, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: The truth will not be dictated by media manipulation or defense theatrics—it will be determined by the facts. And so far, the facts do not favor Michael Clark.
Justice Unlocked. 
Leave a comment